Luca Cheli covered this in his section called, "the shadows", meaning that his reading of the M-B report revealed lack of clarity on certain issues.
One of them was what the "after" referred to, in the section which ended with, "even if true all it proved that they'd been in another part of the cottage at a later time".
No one disputes that RS and AK were there at least by 10:30 am on the second - as the first people to unknowingly enter a crime scene. It's just that the Marasca-Bruno report was unclear that the "after" they referred to potentially extended into the next morning, when no one disputed that they were there. Nothing could "time stamp" when they'd been there.
So it had more to do than with an illegally obtained "confession".
I'm not so sure of that.
It would make more sense if the Marasca CSC panel had written that Amanda Knox lived in the cottage, and was thus was there before and after the murder/rape of Kercher, and that therefore the presence of her DNA in the cottage outside the room where the murder/rape took place was to be entirely expected. Raffaele Sollecito had visited Amanda in the cottage at times before and after the murder. Period.
The way the Marasca CSC panel wrote their hypotheticals left some ambiguities, and in fact they first mentioned the calunnia conviction in Section 4* and then in Section 9.4.1**, devoted considerable space to discussing Amanda's statements from the interrogation, without once indicating that the statements could not be used against her for the murder/rape case according to the Gemelli CSC panel. No doubt this was part of the Marasca CSC panel hypothesizing, but it was lacking as a clear legal statement that should have mentioned the Gemelli CSC panel ruling on inadmissibility.
One might wonder why Marasca did not mention Gemelli - but I think the answer is that Marasca did not want to cast any doubts on the calunnia conviction by pointing out that a previous CSC final judgment had ruled that Amanda's defense rights had indeed been violated during the interrogation. Again, the protection of the police and even the courts from accountability for a violation of defense rights was paramount.
And, to top off this protection against accountability of Italian authorities, in Section 2.2, the Marasca CSC panel wrote that a final judgment of the ECHR would not be able to overturn the domestic Italian calunnia conviction, falsely claiming that there was evidence of calunnia beyond the interrogation***.
* "One cannot avoid concluding, in the meantime, in this first attempted analysis, that the history of this trial has been characterised by a troubled and intrinsically contradictory path, around one sole certainty; the guilt of Amanda Knox for the slanderous accusation of Patrick Lumumba."
** "With this premise, with regards to Amanda Knox’s position, it is now observed that her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is an acclaimed {acknowledged} fact of the trial, based on her own admissions, also contained in her signed memorial, in the part where she explains how, when she was in the kitchen, after the young Englishwoman and another person went into Kercher’s room to have sex, she heard her friend’s harrowing scream, to the lacerating and unbearable point that she slid down, squatting on the floor, holding her hands firmly on her ears, so as to hear no more of it. On this point, the reliability of the opinion of the judge a quo [of the trial from which this appeal is being heard] is certainly acceptable concerning this part of the accused’s account, based on the plausible consideration that it was she who first mentioned a possible sexual motive for the murder and spoke about the victim’s harrowing scream, when the investigators still did not have the results of an examination of the body or of the post-mortem, nor witness information taken later regarding the victim’s scream and the time it was heard (statements from Capezzali Nara, Monacchia Antonella and others). In particular we refer to the appellant’s declarations of 11/06/2007 (f, 96) in the police station.
....
Nevertheless, the calumny in question also represents circumstantial evidence against the appellant in so much as it could be considered as an initiative to cover for Guede, against whom she would have had an interest to protect herself due to retaliatory accusations against her. All is underpinned by the fact that Lumumba, like Guede, is black, hence the reliable reference to the former, in case the other was seen by someone coming into or going out of the flat."
*** "In fact, an eventual pronouncement by the European Court in favour of the same Knox, in the sense of a hoped-for recognition of her unorthodox treatment by the investigators, would not be able, in any way, to undermine the internal [Italian Court] judgment, nor open the prospect for a revision of the verdict and sentence, considering that the libelous accusations which the aforementioned defendant made against Lumumba owing to the impact of the alleged coercive acts were also confirmed by her before a public prosecutor, during questioning, therefore, in a context free of institutionally anomalous psychological pressures; and were also confirmed in a memorandum ["memoriale"] bearing her signature, at a moment when the said accuser was alone with herself and her conscience, in conditions of objective tranquillity, free from external conditioning; and were even repeated, some time later, during the validation of Lumumba's arrest, before the GIP [judge of preliminary investigation] who initiated the proceedings."
